"Like God, and indeed Gaia, the concept is real enough for believers who accept its doctrines without question and treat those who dare question them to the sort of hysterical haranguing that typifies this thread."

Oh come on!! I believe that if you read through this thread it is the 'questioners' who have been guilty of "hysterical haranguing". Just look at some of the weird excuses for rational argument that have flowed from the pen of 'glueman', for example: insults, evasions, pseudo-academic jargon, sulks, tantrums and his latest nonsensical outbursts about Gaia. By contast contributions from the likes of Jim Carrol, Jack Campin and Brian Peters et. al. have been measured, thoughtful and, above all, evidence based.

The 'evolutionary theory' of folk song development, as exemplified by the 1954 definition, is a concept based on several lifetimes of careful, field-based song collecting and evidence gathering. It is NOT 'doctrine' and no-one has claimed that it is anything of the sort - that is gross misrepresentation of other people's views! Like all theories it is incomplete and could be altered by additional data. Unfortunately, it does not fit with some people's preconceptions and must be subject to ridicule and misrepresentation. In addition no-one who supports this theory has ever expressed a desire to 'punish' anyone who doesn't subscribe to it and have no power to do anything of the sort even if they wished to do so!